Since those would be outside of Europe the European Court of Justice have no jurisdiction there.

Wow, who'd have thought What it would do is add credence to the arguments by those opposing the filters / have them dismantled in countries where they've been legislated. And if they don't outlaw them in Europe you can bet it won't be long before they're imposed.

Europe can't outlaw filtering in countries outside europe, obviously, so what would be the point? We cant make laws for other countries and saying "we have decided that doing what you're doing in your country is unlawful". It's like, say, Sweden would decide to outlaw filtering in the U.S. It's pointless and arrogant.
As I understand it this new "directive" (or whatever) would also apply to government forced filtering.
Now, officially condemning something that is happening somewhere else is an entirely different matter.

As I understand it this new "directive" (or whatever) would also apply to government forced filtering.

If the government merely instructed ISPs to do this, I think it would, but the ruling clearly states that legislators can enact laws forcing censorship. It just says that currently those laws don't exist and the copyright industry can't sue ISPs unless they do.

Essentially, they've moved the fight out of the lawyers hands and into the legislature. Money talks there as well, but they'll have to bribe a lot of people to enact these laws with no guarantee of success. As opposed to the current tactic which is to pay lawyers a bunch of money and threaten to sue everyone. So it is a big win.

Europe can't outlaw filtering in countries outside europe, obviously, so what would be the point?.

(1) For ourselves!!

(2) It makes it a lot harder for other countries(i.e. the U.S.) to 'fool' their own electorate into accepting practices that would be or going in the direction of being - a lot more draconian, less free in several ways, and more 'nanny state'{that's being polite} than what would be the new norm over the pond in Europe!

As far as I understand (I am not a lawyer or even an experienced person in legal matters) this already covers that, too, unless the filtering has to do with criminal activities or criminal investigation.

Government imposed blocking is still allowed - in theory. It has to consistant, predicatable and non-discriminatory. Randomly deciding to block pirate bay specifically would probably not fly, by being specific.

In fact in Denmark where ISPs are currently blocking the pirate bay on court order, will also have a consitition forbidding legislation that targets individuals and individual organizations, so it would be impossible to through legislation.

Now, the problem is what they will do when someone draw the child porn card, because will the legislation is technically invalid, we do have a law blocking specific child porn sites, there just no one who wants to sue the government for the right to watch child pornography.

It doesn't mean Internet filtering is outlawed, it only means that ISPs cannot be forced to do it. They are free to do filtering if they themselves wish to, like e.g. if they get enough money from MAFIAA-like entities to do it.

It is still an important decision given the fact that those aforementioned entities have been trying to force ISPs to do filtering, even when the ISPs themselves do not wish to do it. This releases those ISPs unconditionally from such. Also, it could possibly pave the way for actual outlawing of most Internet traffic, though I highly doubt it would mean all of it.

Expect some ISPs now to actually start advertising that they offer unfiltered Internet access if some of the other ISPs in the same country/area make a deal with MAFIAA et. al. and start filtering. It will become a selling point now that there is no worry about MAFIAA coming after them.

To be fair, ISPs don't do it at their own will. Because filtering leads to loss of customers and costs money. And I doubt that the copyright enforcement monopolistic unions will be compensating these ISPs for filtering and loss of customers. In fact, there has not been a single instance where an ISP was payed for the filtering expenses.

In fact, there has not been a single instance where an ISP was payed for the filtering expenses.

Of course not as up until not MAFIAA-like entities have just threatened with court. Now that it's not possible anymore they'll have to pay ISPs in order for them to start/continue filtering. Some ISPs will most likely take the deal if those aforementioned entities are willing to pay enough, greed is just such a powerful force.

Considering the Danish ISP's have fought in court for years against filtering I don't think they will apply filtering on their own. That's effectively prohibited anyway - in Denmark (though the politicians are trying to extend the filtering).

If this ends with a court ruling banning forced filtering it will be in the 11th hour for Denmark, considering the new political course from the "liberal"-conservative government.